Disease as Ground for Termination
"Art. 299 [284] Disease as Ground for Termination.- An employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year." (Art. 299 [284], Labor Code of the Philippines)
Under the circumstances, when an employee has been terminated under Art. 299 or as renumbered [284] of the Labor Code is entitled to separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater.
However, Section 8, Rule 1 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code sets out the requirements in order to validly terminate an employee on the foregoing ground, to wit:
"SECTION 8. Disease as a ground for dismissal. — Where the employee suffers from a disease and his continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees, the employer shall not terminate his employment unless there is a certification by competent public health authority that the disease is of such nature of at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment. If the disease or ailment can be cured within the period, the employer shall not terminate the employee but shall ask the employee to take a leave of absence. The employer shall reinstate such employee to his former position immediately upon the restoration of his normal health."
In a bundle of cases,¹ the Supreme Court held that for a dismissal on the ground of disease to be considered valid, two requisites must concur:
(a) the employee suffers from a disease which cannot be cured within six months and his/her continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his/her health or to the health of his/her co-employees, and
(b) a certification to that effect must be issued by a competent public health authority.
OMANFIL INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & MODH AL-ZOABI TECHNICAL PROJECTS CORP., PETITIONERS, V. ROLANDO B. MESINA, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 217169, November 04, 2020
Author's view
Loopholes under Art. 299 [284] of the Labor Code |
Hello mga panye ,
Meron akong handle na labor case, na kung saan, (ang main argument ko) hinintay ng employer na mamatay nalang ang employee, at hindi ito nag comply sa provision ng Article 284 ng Labor Code.
In effect, nakaligtas sila sa separation pay benefits na makukuha sana ng employee kung nag comply sila sa Article 284 ng Labor Code. 🥹
Nakakalungkot isipin na sa Labor Arbiter na DISMISSED ang complainant namin.
Kasi daw, hindi naman daw na- DISMISSED si former employee (now deceased) under the provision of Art. 284 of the Labor Code.
But luckly, nag award si LA ng ₱200,000.00 by way of financial assistance sa heirs ng complainant citing "compassionate justice and equality"
Kasi nga naman, kung sinunod sana ni employer yung Article. 284, entitled sana si employee sa separation pay. Unfortunately, hindi sila kumilos at hinintay nalang mamatay si employee, despite knowing his severe health condition. 🥹
Fast forward, natalo kami sa NLRC, at wala daw legal basis ang pag award ni LA ng financial assistance based on "compassionate justice and equality"
Balak ko eh akyat sa Court of Appeals ang case via Rule 65. 🥹
Pero hindi ko na alam gagawin ko, at what argument ang sasabihin.
If you have any suggestion/comment, please feel free to write them below (mga panye) 🥹
SALAMAT
FOOTNOTES
Comments